Basal heave analysis of excavations with consideration of anisotropic undrained strength of clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, two cases of excavation to failure were utilized to investigate reasonable analysis methods for basal heave analysis. Three types of tests were carried out to obtain the undrained shear strength of clay in excavations, including the field vane (FV) shear test, the triaxial unconsolidated undrained (UU) shear test, the K 0 -consolidated undrained axial compression (CK 0 U-AC) test, the K 0 -consolidated undrained axial extension (CK 0 U-AE) test, and the K 0 -consolidated undrained direct simple shear (CK 0 U-DSS) test. The analysis results show that the safety factors against basal heave calculated using isotropic undrained strength from the UU test appear acceptable in both excavations, but the results are highly empirical. Safety factors calculated from the FV test tend to be irregular. Moreover, the safety factors were overestimated using the CK 0 U-AC test results. On the other hand, the safety factors computed using anisotropic undrained strength yielded reasonable results. If we perform simplified anisotropic analysis using the average value of the CK 0 U-AC and CK 0 U-AE test results or the undrained strength obtained from the CK 0 U-AC and CK 0 U-AE tests utilized in the active and passive sides of the failure surface, respectively, the results will be close to those from anisotropic undrained strength analysis but on the conservative side. Therefore, anisotropic undrained strength analysis and simplified anisotropic analysis are recommended for basal heave analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".